Stephen Ray Carpenter v. Harold W. Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6194
STEPHEN RAY CARPENTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00605-AJT-WEF)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Ray Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Ray Carpenter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9
(2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations,
running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565
U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Carpenter’s informal brief
and pending motion for a certificate of appealability, we conclude that Carpenter has not
made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d
170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth
Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we
deny Carpenter’s motions for a certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --